Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation
127 S. Ct. 2553 (2007)
President George W. Bush, by executive orders, established a Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program. Itprovided for a White House office and several centers within federal agencies to ensure that faith-based community groups would be eligible to compete for federal financial support. No congressional legislation specifically authorized these entities (they were created entirely within the Executive Branch), nor did Congress enact any law specifically appropriating money to their activities (they are funded through general Executive Branch appropriations). The Freedom from Religion Foundation, an organization opposed to government endorsement of religion, along with three of its members brought this suit alleging that Jay F. Hein, Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, and other working with him violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by organizing conferences that were designed to promote religious community groups over secular ones. The only asserted basis for standing was that the individual respondents were federal taxpayers opposed to executive branch use of congressional appropriations for these conferences. The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed the claims for lack of standing, concluding that under Flast v. Cohen(1968), federal taxpayer standing is limited to Establishment Clause challenges to the constitutionality of exercises of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Article I, Section 8. Because petitioners acted on the president’s behalf and were not charged with administering a congressional program, the court held that the challenged activities did not authorize taxpayer standing under Flast. The Seventh Circuit reversed; it readFlastas granting federal taxpayers standing to challenge executive branch programs on Establishment Clause grounds so long as the activities are financed by a congressional appropriation, even where there is no statutory program and the funds are from appropriations for general administrative expenses. According to the court, a taxpayer has standing to challenge anything done by a federal agency so long as the marginal or incremental cost to the public of the alleged Establishment Clause violation is greater than zero. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. Judgment of the Court:Alito, Kennedy, Roberts. Concurring opinion: Kennedy.Concurring in the judgment: Scalia, Thomas. Dissenting opinion: Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens.
JUSTICE ALITO announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE KENNEDY join.
This is a lawsuit in which it was claimed that conferences held as part of the President’s Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because, among other things, President Bush and former Secretary of Education Paige gave speeches that used “religious imagery” and praised the efficacy of faith-based programs in delivering social services. The plaintiffs contend that they meet the standing requirements of Article III of the Constitution because they pay federal taxes.
It has long been established, however, that the payment of taxes is generally not enough to establish standing to challenge an action taken by the Federal Government. In light of the size of the federal budget, it is a complete fiction to argue that an unconstitutional federal expenditure causes an individual federal taxpayer any measurable economic harm. And if every federal taxpayer could sue to challenge any Government expenditure, the federal courts would cease to function as courts of law and would be cast in the role of general complaint bureaus.
In Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83(1968), we recognized a narrow exception to the general rule against federal taxpayer standing. Under Flast, a plaintiff asserting an Establishment Clause claim has standing to challenge a law authorizing the use of federal funds in a way that allegedly violates the Establishment Clause. In the present case, Congress did not specifically authorize the use of federal funds to pay for the conferences or speeches that the plaintiffs challenged. Instead, the conferences and speeches were paid for out of general Executive Branch appropriations. The Court of Appeals, however, held that the plaintiffs have standing as taxpayers because the conferences were paid for with money appropriated by Congress.
The question that is presented here is whether this broad reading of Flast is correct. We hold that it is not. We therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
I
In 2001, the President issued an executive order creating the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives within the Executive Office of the President. The purpose of this new office was to ensure that “private and charitable community groups, including religious ones . . . have the fullest opportunity permitted by law to compete on a level playing field, so long as they achieve valid public purposes” and adhere to “the bedrock principles of pluralism, nondiscrimination, evenhandedness, and neutrality.” The office was specifically charged with the task of eliminating unnecessary bureaucratic, legislative, and regulatory barriers that could impede such organizations’ effectiveness and ability to compete equally for federal assistance.
By separate executive orders, the President also created Executive Department Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives within several federal agencies and departments. These centers were given the job of ensuring that faith-based community groups would be eligible to compete for federal financial support without impairing their independence or autonomy, as long as they did “not use direct Federal financial assistance to support any inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization.” To this end, the President directed that “no organization should be discriminated against on the basis of religion or religious belief in the administration or distribution of Federal financial assistance under social service programs,” and that “all organizations that receive Federal financial assistance under social services programs should be prohibited from discriminating against beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries of the social services programs on the basis of religion or religious belief.”Petitioners, who have been sued in their official capacities, are the directors of the White House Office and various ExecutiveDepartmentCenters.
No congressional legislation specifically authorized the creation of the White House Office or the ExecutiveDepartmentCenters. Rather, they were “created entirely within the executive branch . . . by Presidential executive order.” Nor has Congress enacted any law specifically appropriating money for these entities’ activities. Instead, their activities are funded through general Executive Branch appropriations. For example, the Department of Education’s Center is funded from money appropriated for the Office of the Secretary of Education, while the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Center is funded through that Department’s salaries and expenses account.
The respondents are Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., a nonstock corporation “opposed to government endorsement of religion,” and three of its members. Respondents brought suit . . . alleging that petitioners violated the Establishment Clause by organizing conferences at which faith-based organizations allegedly “are singled out as being particularly worthy of federal funding . . ., and the belief in God is extolled as distinguishing the claimed effectiveness of faith-based social services.” Respondents further alleged that the content of these conferences sent a message to religious believers “that they are insiders and favored members of the political community” and that the conferences sent the message to nonbelievers “that they are outsiders” and “not full members of the political community.” In short, respondents alleged that the conferences were designed to promote, and had the effect of promoting, religious community groups over secular ones.
The only asserted basis for standing was that the individual respondents are federal taxpayers who are “opposed to the use of Congressional taxpayer appropriations to advance and promote religion.” In their capacity as federal taxpayers, respondents sought to challenge Executive Branch expenditures for these conferences, which, they contended, violated the Establishment Clause.
The District Court dismissed the claims against petitioners for lack of standing. . . . A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. . . . In dissent, Judge Ripple opined that the majority’s decision reflected a “dramatic expansion of current standing doctrine” that “cuts the concept of taxpayer standing loose from its moorings.” Noting that “the executive can do nothing without general budget appropriationsfrom Congress,” he criticized the majority for overstepping Flast’s requirement that a “plaintiff must bring an attack against a disbursement of public funds made in the exercise of Congress’ taxing and spending power.”
II
Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power of the United States to the resolution of “Cases” and “Controversies,” and “‘Article III standing . . . enforces the Constitution’s case-or-controversy requirement.’”. . .
The constitutionally mandated standing inquiry is especially important in a case like this one, in which taxpayers seek “to challenge laws of general application where their own injury is not distinct from that suffered in general by other taxpayers or citizens.” This is because “the judicial power of the United States defined by Article III is not an unconditioned authority to determine the constitutionality of legislative or executive acts.” The federal courts are not empowered to seek out and strike down any governmental act that they deem to be repugnant to the Constitution. Rather, federal courts sit “solely, to decide on the rights of individuals,”Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), and must “‘refrain from passing upon the constitutionality of an act . . . unless obliged to do so in the proper performance of our judicial function, when the question is raised by a party whose interests entitle him to raise it.’” . . .
In Flast, the Court carved out a narrow exception to the general constitutional prohibition against taxpayer standing. The taxpayer-plaintiff in that case challenged the distribution of federal funds to religious schools under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, alleging that such aid violated the Establishment Clause. The Court set out a two-part test for determining whether a federal taxpayer has standing to challenge an allegedly unconstitutional expenditure:
First, the taxpayer must establish a logical link between that status and the type of legislative enactment attacked. Thus, a taxpayer will be a proper party to allege the unconstitutionality only of exercises of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, § 8, of the Constitution. It will not be sufficient to allege an incidental expenditure of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute . . . . Secondly, the taxpayer must establish a nexus between that status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged. Under this requirement, the taxpayer must show that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the congressional taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, § 8.
The Court held that the taxpayer-plaintiff in Flast had satisfied both prongs of this test: The plaintiff’s “constitutional challenge [was] made to an exercise by Congress of its power under Art. I, § 8, to spend for the general welfare,” and she alleged a violation of the Establishment Clause, which “operates as a specific constitutional limitation upon the exercise by Congress of the taxing and spending power conferred by Art. I, § 8.”
III
Respondents argue that this case falls within the Flast exception, which they read to cover any “expenditure of government funds in violation of the Establishment Clause.” But this broad reading fails to observe “the rigor with which the Flast exception to the Frothingham principle ought to be applied.”
The expenditures at issue in Flast were made pursuant to an express congressional mandate and a specific congressional appropriation. The plaintiff in that case challenged disbursements made under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. That Act expressly appropriated the sum of $ 100 million for fiscal year 1966, and authorized the disbursement of those funds to local educational agencies for the education of low-income students. The Act mandated that local educational agencies receiving such funds “make provision for including special educational services and arrangements (such as dual enrollment, educational radio and television, and mobile educational services and equipment)” in which students enrolled in private elementary and secondary schools could participate. In addition, recipient agencies were required to ensure that “library resources, textbooks, and other instructional materials” funded through the grants “be provided on an equitable basis for the use of children and teachers in private elementary and secondary schools.”
The expenditures challenged in Flast, then, were funded by a specific congressional appropriation and were disbursed to private schools (including religiously affiliated schools) pursuant to a direct and unambiguous congressional mandate. Indeed, the Flast taxpayer-plaintiff’s constitutional claim was premised on the contention that if the Government’s actions were “‘within the authority and intent of the Act, the Act is to that extent unconstitutional and void.’” And the judgment reviewed by this Court in Flast solely concerned the question whether “if [the challenged] expenditures are authorized by the Act the statute constitutes a ‘law respecting an establishment of religion’ and law ‘prohibiting the free exercise thereof’“ under the First Amendment.
Given that the alleged Establishment Clause violation in Flast was funded by a specific congressional appropriation and was undertaken pursuant to an express congressional mandate, the Court concluded that the taxpayer-plaintiffs had established the requisite “logical link between [their taxpayer] status and the type of legislative enactment attacked.” In the Court’s words, “their constitutional challenge [was] made to an exercise by Congress of its power under Art. I, § 8, to spend for the general welfare.” But as this Court later noted, Flast “limited taxpayer standing to challenges directed ‘only [at] exercises of congressional power’” under the Taxing and Spending Clause.
The link between congressional action and constitutional violation that supported taxpayer standing in Flast is missing here. Respondents do not challenge any specific congressional action or appropriation; nor do they ask the Court to invalidate any congressional enactment or legislatively created program as unconstitutional. That is because the expenditures at issue here were not made pursuant to any Act of Congress. Rather, Congress provided general appropriations to the Executive Branch to fund its day-to-day activities. These appropriations did not expressly authorize, direct, or even mention the expenditures of which respondents complain. Those expenditures resulted from executive discretion, not congressional action. . . .
In short, this case falls outside the “the narrow exception” that Flast “created to the general rule against taxpayer standing established in Frothingham.” Because the expenditures that respondents challenge were not expressly authorized or mandated by any specific congressional enactment, respondents’ lawsuit is not directed at an exercise of congressional power and thus lacks the requisite “logical nexus” between taxpayer status “and the type of legislative enactment attacked.”
IV
Respondents argue that it is “arbitrary” to distinguish between money spent pursuant to congressional mandate and expenditures made in the course of executive discretion, because “the injury to taxpayers in both situations is the very injury targeted by the Establishment Clause and Flast -- the expenditure for the support of religion of funds exacted from taxpayers.” The panel majority below agreed, based on its observation that “there is so much that executive officials could do to promote religion in ways forbidden by the establishment clause.”
But Flast focused on congressional action, and we must decline this invitation to extend its holding to encompass discretionary Executive Branch expenditures. . . .
While respondents argue that Executive Branch expenditures in support of religion are no different from legislative extractions, Flast itself rejected this equivalence: “It will not be sufficient to allege an incidental expenditure of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute.”
Because almost all Executive Branch activity is ultimately funded by some congressional appropriation, extending the Flast exception to purely executive expenditures would effectively subject every federal action -- be it a conference, proclamation or speech -- to Establishment Clause challenge by any taxpayer in federal court. To see the wide swathe of activity that respondents’ proposed rule would cover, one need look no further than the amended complaint in this action, which focuses largely on speeches and presentations made by Executive Branch officials. Such a broad reading would ignore the first prong of Flast’s standing test, which requires “a logical link between [taxpayer] status and the type of legislative enactment attacked.”
It would also raise serious separation-of-powers concerns. . . . The constitutional requirements for federal-court jurisdiction -- including the standing requirements and Article III -- “are an essential ingredient of separation and equilibration of powers.”“Relaxation of standing requirements is directly related to the expansion of judicial power,” and lowering the taxpayer standing bar to permit challenges of purely executive actions “would significantly alter the allocation of power at the national level, with a shift away from a democratic form of government.” The rule respondents propose would enlist the federal courts to superintend, at the behest of any federal taxpayer, the speeches, statements, and myriad daily activities of the President, his staff, and other Executive Branch officials. This . . . would “open the Judiciary to an arguable charge of providing ‘government by injunction.’” It would deputize federal courts as “‘virtually continuing monitors of the wisdom and soundness of Executive action,’” and that, most emphatically, “is not the role of the judiciary.”